Principles of fairness being put to the test

The organisers of the Principles of Fairness initiative should not be surprised that some of the signatories have already begun quarrelling amongst themselves. With so many groups representing a wide range of interests, disagreements were bound to arise when the principles were put to the test. But the Fairness committee can take some small comfort in the fact that the first public fallout was not between ethnic organisations, but class-based ones. The Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Commerce on Monday issued a statement condemning Public Services Association president Jennifer Baptiste Primus for her Labour Day comments about the Syrian community. “How can we buy into the vision of fairness when the visionaries themselves are pointing fingers based on ethnicity?” asked the Chamber.

But ethnicity was only Ms Baptiste Primus’s hot button for her true bias — which is against business interests. Couching her statement in racial terms was tangential to whether she actually harbours racial prejudice or not. Her main purpose was to whip up irrational fervour — and what better device than race could she have used? It is the crudest sort of politics, but Ms Baptiste Primus is not a person with much political resource. Since the Principles of Fairness initiative was launched by chairman Ken Gordon, a few other signatories have made public statements which seem to contradict the spirit and intent of the document. Part of the problem is that many of the signatories have very specific group interests, and pursuing those agendas often means putting the good of the whole society in second place — or, indeed, in no place at all.

If this is so, one might ask why these persons signed the document at all. There are two main reasons. First, it is to the advantage of any group to appear “fair”, even if they aren’t — indeed, the more self-interested the group is, the more advantage they get by seeming not to be. Secondly, no reasonable person could really disagree with any of the eight principles — but that is because all of them are essentially trite. It is, after all, easy to agree that discrimination must be rejected; that meritocracy must prevail; that religious and cultural differences should be respected; and that racial harmony must be promoted. But the committee is at fault if its members believe they can create a national omelette without breaking ethnic eggshells

When these principles are applied to concrete issues, this becomes apparent. Take the second Principle: “We reject discrimination, on whatever grounds, in all its forms.” Does this mean that every signatory would oppose the Equal Opportunities Act, which specifically allows discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? One signatory, the Maha Sabha, has supported this Act when every other major national organisation criticised it, and Bishop Calvin Bess, who has signed on behalf of the Anglican Church, has made it clear that he considers homosexuality an “abomination.” What does Selwyn Cudjoe, a supporter of affirmative action for Afro-Trinidadians only, really think of the principle which commits signatories to “establishing a Society in which citizens enjoy reward in accordance with their individual effort and achievement?”

As the initiative gets underway, more issues like these are going to arise and more contention will occur. Mr Gordon will not long be able to speak vaguely of more unity calypsos or less strident media rhetoric as evidence that people are following the principles. If this initiative is to be effective, stronger strategies will have to be pursued — including dealing with those signatories who do not keep to their commitment.